The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
What Happens When Dogs Attack a Bull
Status: Real
This series of images of two pit bulls attacking a bull are a couple of months old (though they're new to me). They recall those images of a mule attacking a mountain lion. Despite looking rather surreal (especially that one of the dog suspended in air above the bull), not to mention bizarre (what were the dogs thinking?), they are real. This scene occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, outside of New Orleans, when the two pit bulls, crazed with hunger, decided that a bull would make a great dinner. They were wrong. A reporter for the Sunday Telegraph witnessed the scene:

Like a wrestling tag team, the bitch and the dog attacked with awesome ferocity, leaping at the bull's head and latching on to its muzzle. The stricken bull repeatedly shook the dogs off, flinging them up to 15 feet in the air. But they took turns to keep up the attack, exhausting the bull which was by now smeared with blood. Even after the bull trampled the bitch, leaving it dazed, the dog stepped up its attack... It was too dangerous for an unarmed witness to intervene but The Sunday Telegraph flagged down a National Guard truck. Seeing what was happening, a soldier shot the bitch in the head. The dog paused before resuming the attack. It took two bullets to stop it dead.

image image image image
Categories: AnimalsPhotos/Videos
Posted by The Curator on Fri Feb 03, 2006
I know this is a really different situation, but these pit bulls are vicious MFers. I, for one wouldn't give a care if they did outlaw this 'breed'. Its been almost a whole week since I heard a story of a pit bull disfiguring or killing someone, while the owners and others hit the animal with a baseball bat, yet doesn't slow it down a lick.
Posted by Mickyfinn  on  Fri Feb 03, 2006  at  09:44 AM
My dad's neighbor's dog was attacked by a leashed pit bull in the street in front of his driveway. My dad brought out a ball peen hammer and repeatedly struck the pit in the skull with it. The dog never let go until the owner was able to drag it away as it tried to reset its grip.

Cue the "pitty" defenders...
Posted by Travis Finucane  in  Santa Cruz, CA  on  Fri Feb 03, 2006  at  01:36 PM
Awww ... poor dogs! Starving to death, then shot. Awww.
Posted by Dracul  on  Fri Feb 03, 2006  at  03:21 PM
I remember seeing these long before Katrina, can't remember if it was at snopes...but I think it was determined that it was a setup.
Posted by Carl_P  in  NY  on  Fri Feb 03, 2006  at  04:55 PM
I checked snopes. Couldn't find anything about this. Anyway, the Sunday Telegraph pretty much states that they were there, and right now I don't have any reason to doubt them.
Posted by The Curator  in  San Diego  on  Sat Feb 04, 2006  at  01:42 AM
Ugh, do people really have to use the word "bitch" to refer to female dogs? I know that's what it originally meant, but it just doesn't work anymore...
Posted by Citizen Premier  in  spite of public outcry  on  Sat Feb 04, 2006  at  02:02 AM
"Ugh, do people really have to use the word "bitch" to refer to female dogs?"

Er... yes.

It is the correct word to describe such creatures.

Whom are you concerned will take offence, people or the dog? :D
Posted by Peter  on  Sat Feb 04, 2006  at  07:18 AM
I bet the reporter was enjoying every minute of it, she probably had one of those beer hats and a big foam #1 hand and was waving a little flag

GO BULL GO!
Posted by Blood For Nothing  in  Somewhere in the Arctic  on  Sat Feb 04, 2006  at  08:10 AM
What kind of weapon was this NG soldier using that it wouldn't stop a dog after being hit in the head? Using an M16 it would be pretty hard to believe that a 5.56 round wouldn't rip through the dog like a knife through butter. And if he was using the M9 he would have to get pretty close, but there are no pictures of that. I think the urban legend here is that pit bulls are portrayed as almost supernatural in their endurance. Tough is one thing, but immune to rifle fire is another. This dude either missed and just stunned the dog for a moment or as usual the reporter didn't understand what was going on. If that's how it all went down.
Posted by Lonewatchman  on  Sat Feb 04, 2006  at  11:48 AM
Bulldogs do have strong skulls, Lonewatchman. And it would also be a fairly small, rounded target, perhaps moving around a bit. It's quite possible that the bullet would hit it at an angle and be deflected. And even if the bullet did penetrate, shots to the head are often not instantly fatal (especially with a small-calibre jacketed round like an M-16 fires).

As you said, though, we are dependant on the reporter's description of what happened, and we all know just how accurate and knowledgable news reports can be.
Posted by Accipiter  on  Sat Feb 04, 2006  at  08:24 PM
As an answer to the "what were the dogs thing?" Pit bulls are called that because they were bred for bullbaiting and bull fights. And often they were the winners.
Posted by Shawn Crahan  on  Sat Feb 04, 2006  at  10:07 PM
I pity the bull!!!
Posted by B.A. Baracus  on  Sun Feb 05, 2006  at  04:08 PM
ok first off,someone was talking about the gun used to shoot the dogs,plenty of animals and humans have been shot with bigger then m16 and lived no problem,some have been shot in head and died,but still had enough in them to still run or attack,so your just dumb and dont know shit...pit bulls were not only breed to fight do more research before you talk about something u dont know....if we ban pit bulls the same idiot owners that made that pitbull mean will just choose a new breed and make it mean so it wont stop..ive been doing euthanasia at the shelter i work at for 2 yrs,ive never been bit by a pitbull,i have by almost everyother breed...now thats something to thing
k about....
Posted by don fritz  in  il  on  Tue Feb 28, 2006  at  11:33 PM
I think they should ban bulls instead, i'm tired of eating them at mcdonalds
Posted by miko  on  Tue Mar 07, 2006  at  07:55 AM
If that had been two wolves attacking a deer, no one would have stopped them. But two starving domesticated animals get shot for doing what any animal (or person)would have done in the same situation, surviving.

I find it rediculous that anyone can justify killing hungry animals for hunting simply because they are a specific breed.

If those had been labadors, would shooting them have still been okay? I seriously doubt it. Labs would have garnered sympathy, while the fact that these are two pit bulls just feeds more fuel to the breed specific legislation movement.

Fritz made some good points. Maybe they should outlaw stupid humans and then we wouldn't have so many aggressve dogs.
Posted by Sole  in  Arkansas  on  Wed Mar 08, 2006  at  11:45 PM
When domesticated animals go wild, they are called feral. They are more dangerous than, for example, coyotes because
1) no fear of humans
2) don't behave like wild animals
3) don't behave like domesticated animals
4) have the potential to completely fuck the local balance of wildlife
5) have the potential to wreak havoc on human activities (such as attacking domestic animals like the bull depicted)
6) in the case of these dogs, bred for fighting

A pack of feral dogs needs to be dealt with very aggressively. Next time you have six slavering animals attacking your pet cat, the last thing on your mind is letting nature take its course.
Posted by Travis Finucane  in  Santa Cruz, CA  on  Thu Mar 09, 2006  at  01:32 PM
Those of you who wrote praise and support for the murder of these two dogs and for banning "pit bulls" are ignorant and misinformed about these dogs. The two dogs in this article were simply orphans of a natural disaster who were hunting because they were hungry. What would you do if you were in their place? You cannot condemn an animal for trying to survive.

As a whole, Pit Bulls are very kind and docile. The American Kennel Club recommends the American Pit Bull Terrier as a pet for families with children. If you look at the statistics on the Temperment Testing Society website, you will see that Pit Bulls have one of the highest passing rates of any breed. The majority of times that there is a report on a "pit bull" attack the dog(s) involved is not even a Pit Bull. If you do see a picture of the dog involved, most times, it is a mongrel of some sort or a dog of another aggressive breed such as Mastiffs, Akitas, German Shepards, or even Chows. Below are recent articles about attacks of dogs of various other breeds:

http://www.workingpitbull.com/fatalbook.htm

Get informed before you go running around "half-cocked" spreading misinformation.
Posted by Dave Caldwell  in  Willowbrook, IL  on  Thu Apr 06, 2006  at  08:03 PM
There isn't anything wrong with owning a pitbull. It's the owners who mistreat these animals to be angry animals. I do own two pitbulls and have a 3year old son playing with them. It's all on how you treat them and raise them. pitbull owners should have to have a license and criminal back round check in order to have one of these animals.
Pitublls are not humane agressive can be animal agressive if trained to be. Pitbulls love anyone and anything as long as their taken care of. My dogs have to sleep under the blanket take showers with me go to the store etc. Society needs to be educated on this special breed of dog their actually a four legged humane if you know about the breed and own ot.
Posted by Jennifer  in  New Jersey  on  Fri Apr 21, 2006  at  05:32 PM
Listen up people. The pit bull is the result of human selective breeding over many years. The purpose of the pit bull was to fight to the death if necessary in a dog pit. In a fight the dog undergoes extreme doses of pain. They are bred, however, for that specific purpose; to tolerate ridiculous amounts of pain without ever loosing sense of who the enemy is. During a fight, the dogs are being bit any and everywhere by the other dog while the owners are trying to pull them apart. The dogs do not bite theirs or other owners during the fight. True pit bulls are extremeny human friendly and weren't bred as guard dogs. If a person is attacked by any bull breed, the media often refers to the dog as a pit bull. I personally asked a news station to verify that a dog was a pure bred pit bull after it had atacked a woman and they couldn't.
Posted by Gracie  on  Sat May 20, 2006  at  02:04 PM
Pit bulls are not evil dogs. I would trust one with my child same as I would a lab. I watched two black labs attack and kill my best friends dog for no reason what so ever. Should we kill all black labs because of it? I have been attacked by a chow should i hate all chows because of it? People who hate pit bulls because of the evil things people have made the do are not only idiots but should be shot along with the people that gave the pit bull a bad name. Rememeber any breed of dog can be meand and any breed of dog can attack and kill.
Posted by Richard  in  Camp Pendelton  on  Thu Aug 17, 2006  at  01:16 PM
My cat would have killed that bull faster than the pitbulls.
Posted by bananaman  on  Wed Feb 07, 2007  at  04:24 PM
These dogs acted naturally. They reacted the same way people do when faced with starvation. Only the strong survive and thats what these dogs did they got tough instead of choosing to die. they choose taking the risk of being killed by the bull rather then die of starvation. Shooting these dogs was uncalled for. They had collars on meaning they were original owned by a human being. If there is one piece of information many people lack it's that a dog is only as good as its owner. But i will acknowledge that dogs can be dangerous, (TRY USING THIS IN A GENERAL STATEMENT RATHER THEN PINNING DANGEROUS ONLY ON A PIT BULL) The killing of these dogs was uncalled for. Why didn't the same people who killed these beautiful creatures try offering food to them. Probly out of fear is why they didn't but it sure as hell didn't stop them from snapping pictures of a pit bull attacking. Ignorant Bastards thats what i say.
Posted by Katie  in  philadelphia, PA  on  Thu Feb 08, 2007  at  03:34 PM
I had no 'effin' idea that 'feral dogs' wore collars .... come the f*ck on people ... whomever allowed this whole act to take place should be hung ...
Posted by Gwen  in  Chesapeake VA  on  Sun Apr 01, 2007  at  10:34 PM
oops, I almost forgot ...

Dear Katie in Philly ...

Humans would NOT behave this way ... we are gatherers ... stupid dummy head!
(sorry, i had to kick it down a notch so you could understand ... given your mentality level and all ... )
pst; the correct spelling is; probably ...
Posted by Gwen  in  Chesapeake VA  on  Sun Apr 01, 2007  at  10:41 PM
fe
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Mon Apr 02, 2007  at  10:20 AM
FUCK you people that think pitbulls are bad.the only reason that you think that thier bad is just because youve had a bad experince with them.an all the ignorint people that dont like them shut youre mouths and find something better to do than bag on a dog that cant even do anything for its self. its not like they can talk or have a say in this.ya there are bad pitbulls out there but there is even more good ones then mean ones.
Posted by hl  in  palm springs  on  Mon Apr 16, 2007  at  11:35 PM
I can't believe some fool shot two dogs for attacking a bull--the soldier who agreed to do that must have never been to a farm in his life--cattle are just meat--dogs are a farmer's friends. That soldier should have shot the bull in the head so the two dogs could eat it without risking getting hurt. Who cares if two starving pits kill a cow? what the hell good is the cow anyway except to eat?
Posted by adam  in  sacramento, CA  on  Mon Apr 23, 2007  at  08:38 PM
If you look closely, at these dogs, their ears have not been cropped, nor their tails bobbed. These dogs were probably not breed for fighting, as those are two crucial things a fighting pit must have done. (Less to bite at) It is quite simply that these dogs were starving, and there was fresh beef in sight. If I was starving, I would try to kill the bull too. Notice, they didn't attack the reporter, standing just feet away, taking pictures. That would have been much easier. The dogs are much faster than humans and can jump six foot fences like low hurdles. Pits are also one of the more carasmatic breeds of dogs, usually bred for protection, of humans. I have been around dogs my entire life, and never bit by a pit, which Ihave encountered near forty rescued dogs. I have been bit by many smaller, house dogs, such as wire-hair terriers and maltese, even labs. The difference is that these dogs, pits, are so very strong-jawed, that if they have a reason, whatever it may be, there's no stopping them, because the jaw-lock. However, given this situation, any breed of dog would have done the same, if not worse. These dogs were running around and only attacked a bull, not the reporter standing just feet away, nor the soldiers firing on them.
Posted by Corey  in  Indy  on  Wed May 09, 2007  at  02:15 PM
ok first of all i got to say pitbulls kickass second i got to say all you people who want to ban them you can go off and fuck yourself. if you want to ban pitbulls you mite as well try to ban the military there both traind the same to kill or be killed to hunt or be hunted so dont bitch about these dogs..
Posted by sid  in  boobs  on  Thu May 31, 2007  at  12:06 AM
First, just a little correction, pit bulls' jaws do not "lock." They are extremely strong and muscular and difficult to pry apart. However, they do not physically "lock" ever, in ANY way.

Second, for those of you defending pit bulls. I agree with you (you can see that in my previous response, however I want to issue a word of caution. Typing curse words, insults, and otherwise demeaning people who are afraid of specific breeds of dogs does nothing but ENFORCE the hate and fear that these people have. They may be wrong, but when you defend pit bulls with one breath and curse someone out with the next, you are just proving their point. If you want to be taken seriously, speak with respect and intelligence, please.

Third, Gwen from Chesapeake, VA: First off, see above statement. Second off, you showed your own ignorance in saying that humans are "gatherers" and not "hunters." The proper term is "hunter/gatherer" and they go TOGETHER. Humans have eaten meat sense the beginning of time. We are not herbivores or carnivores. We are omnivores. This means we need BOTH meat (or a meat-like substitute) and vegetation to survive.
Posted by Sole  in  Arkansas  on  Thu Jul 05, 2007  at  11:33 PM
Comments: Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.